Term 3 – Nominations for Minister of Foreign Affairs

[Nobody]

Greetings Citizens,

I am once again running for the position of Foreign affairs advisor. We are playing a five city challenge game; this means that we have limited amounts of cities to produce shields, gold, beakers and territory. This means we can not build giant army’s, tax huge amounts of money, research everything we want or have large territory containing natural resources. This means in the Five City challenge game foreign affairs is even more important than before. We must trade with our neighbours to gain gold, technology and resources. This also means that we need good relations so we can trade profitably. Also good relations will decrease the chance of war.
To build friendly relationships with our neighbours I will use embassies, trade, gifts, and treaty’s to increase their relationship to polite. I will honour all agreements because a black mark against our record will make relations impossible. To the nation up to date I will post in my government thread information about all our neighbours.
Many of my competitors have been calling for war against our neighbours. Now I am not totally against military action. But I will not wage wars simply to destroy our neighbours or to gain our one city per civ. This is a boring way to play the game. I can play like that one player. I will declare war for real reasons. As far as fighting the war goes that’s up the Military I won’t get involved in that. But if elected I will appoint a person (possible deputy) to be the FA/MA lassoing* officer so we can make sure the military and foreign affairs can work together to deal to threats.
Also if elected I will put forward my much anticipated Ambassador position. Every nation we have a embassy with will need an ambassador. After every turn chat the Ambassador will look at the save and briefly comment in the FA thread about our relations with that civilization. This is so we can have people specialising in each nation. Ambassadorships will be first given to people who don’t have current jobs and old veterans. This is to help pull people back into the game who have moved away and because in real life Ambassadorships are given to state servants at the end of their career. Also Ambassadorships have great role-playing possibility and I hope a Ambassador could keep their title longer than one term. Maybe the senate could confirm them, it would be fun. I will start a discussion thread once elected to work out the kinks.
I will also concern myself with Democracy and Honour. I will make fair and clear polls and discussions on all issues of foreign affairs keeping to a minimum standard above the legal requirement. And by appointing more people to foreign office I will involve more people in the decision making process. As far as honour goes this will be our counter balance to the AIs randomness. Nations like Persia who wage war against us now will get theirs latter one way or another. This could be as much as burning down their capital or as little as not signing an alliance.
I promise to keep the government thread in order and keep it updated unlike this term. I will bring stability and honesty to the Foreign Affairs office, and keep you the citizenry up to date. Now you’re going to see a lot of big signatures and catch phrases but not from me, look beyond the flurry, vote reasonably and on the issues. Vote Reasonably Vote Nobody. You know i represent a strong Foreign Affairs department, and proserity will come from trade which will be favor a Nobdaziny admistration. As far as experince i have been the Foreign Affairs Advisor for two successfull terms and deputy many times.

vote reasonably vote nobody
Thank you for your time.


*If you know the word I mean or the spelling please inform me, a 300 dollar reward is offered.​

 

[Donovan Zoi]

But if elected I will appoint a person (possible deputy) to be the FA/MA lassoing* officer so we can make sure the military and foreign affairs can work together to deal to threats.

*If you know the word I mean or the spelling please inform me, a 300 dollar reward is offered.​

I believe the word you are looking for is liaison. I can really use the 300 gold for my campaign, but you may keep it.

Respectfully,

Donovan Zoi
President of Fanatikos

 

[Furiey]

Liaison, yes that's the word, but I'm never going to be able to use it again without thinking of a cowboy going after those cows!

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Liaison, yes that's the word, but I'm never going to be able to use it again without thinking of a cowboy going after those cows!

Ah, but Furiey....in order to be a successful liaison, mustn't all great diplomats be skilled in the art of lassoing?

 

[Civlord]

Vote Civlord. We need Honour and Competent Diplomats

 

[Civlord]

Vote Civlord

As far as I am concerned, my main goal is to benefit from AI vs. AI fights and only declare war if we have conditions to win. I will make military alliances, if possible, and adopt a strict cooperation with the Office of President and the Minister of Defense. My plan is to give Fanatikos a Golden Age with a distant weak civilization, and to make sure that, if we have war, then we will have a favourable war according to our new government. Vote Civlord, vote for a Strong Government!

About Wars

My plan is to keep peace, but to have short and favourable wars tht can give us advantages in the future. Now we need a GA, and this is the best time and government to have it. here are my plans:

- Make a weak and distant civ declare war on us, and thus hoping we can send a hoplite there to have a Golden Age.
- Put the AI civs against each other. This slows AI culture and science and makes sure we are going to be the leaders in the tech race.
- Favor military alliances to achieve our main objectives. My major plan is to have a phony war with Rome and only think about an attack after twenty turns or more. How? We can make military alliances with France and Germany, thus making them fight for us. When it becomes clear that Rome is loosing, then I will ask the President and the Minister of Defense, with the approval of the citizens, to send a sizeable force to take a city and possibly luxuries and immediately sue for peace, but also considering our alliances with other nations. I will keep Fanatikos reputation clean: we are not going to break any treaties unless we REALLY need to do it.
- We will avoid making too many wars. My plan is only to have a few favorable wars that will grant us rewards. If an AI civ offer us military alliances and wars that really cannot give us a good reward for our fight and go against the interests of Fanatikos, I will be refusing them.
- Strenghten the relations of Fanatikos with our powerful neighbors (France, and perhaps Germany).
- Approach ROP deals with caution. We must remember that the AI does not care too much about reputation. I am affraid that signing ROP's with many AI civs can only lead to a ROP-rape instead of a better peace.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

It's hard to believe that this position is so coveted that we are losing two potential governors for it.

Now, for my questions. As potential President for Term 3, one of my goals is to help create some work for the Exptriate Governor. Please answer the following.

Do agree with the taking of foreign cities in Term 3?

How soon before we can even consider such a mission?

What are your plans for war against a nation once we have taken our one pretermined city?

Do we implement a scorched earth policy on their remaining cities?

Do we make peace once the objective city is ours?


Thank you for your time, gentlemen.


Respectfully,

Donovan Zoi
President of Fanatikos

 

[Furiey]

Ah, but Furiey....in order to be a successful liaison, mustn't all great diplomats be skilled in the art of lassoing?

Perhaps we have discovered the true origins of the word

 

[Civlord]

Do agree with the taking of foreign cities in Term 3?

I will favor taking cities from any AI civ. IF they grant us luxuries and strategic resources AND/OR are well placed and not too far way from our capitol.

How soon before we can even consider such a mission?

I will declare war according to the interests of Fanatikos. But as soon as we can build a sizeable force we will have war. My strategy is to have allies fighting for us until our enemy is weaken, unless their demands are too expensive.

What are your plans for war against a nation once we have taken our one pretermined city?

If we take a well-placed and rich city, my plan is to sue for peace as soon as we can. We must have favorable and SHORT wars. But we may also benefit from the war happiness bonus by making the AI civs to declare war on Fanatikos instead of we giving the first step.

Do we implement a scorched earth policy on their remaining cities?

If we take a good city, we will raze the others if necessary. My plan is to weaken the army of rival civs with alliances and other stuff. But I will avoid destroying too many of their cities. We need a divided AI. If we are going to raze all the cities we can't keep, then some other civ will settle there and increase their territory and power. We need many divided enemies, not a single powerful civ. Or else we would be in danger.
In trade, this also applies. Many neighbors with whom we can negotiate are better than a single neighbor.

Do we make peace once the objective city is ours?

Possibly. We must have a clean reputation, so if we are fighting a civ in alliance with other we will first wait until the alliance treaty expires to sign peace. But my plan is to sue for peace as soon as possible after we take our objective cities.

 

[Civlord]

Vote Civlord for a Strong FA Office

 

[greekguy]

Do agree with the taking of foreign cities in Term 3?

Very much so. I feel we should have a minimum of two foreign cities under our control by Term 3's end.

How soon before we can even consider such a mission?

I believe our millitary is coming together and a powerful force should be available soon enough. But a real answer to this question cannot be made without coordination with the Defense Department.

What are your plans for war against a nation once we have taken our one pretermined city?

Do we implement a scorched earth policy on their remaining cities?

Do we make peace once the objective city is ours?

If an enemy declares war on us, I would probably try to acquire peace as soon as they are willing to talk. I feel we won't be able to hold a city unless we have proper troop preparations. That can only happen if we declare war, not the other way around. I believe a scorched earth policy will be a main goal of my administration. If we capture an objective city, there is a chance it might flip back, if the citie's original owner is still alive. In my opinion, we should raze all cities, save the one city from each civ we capture. Peace is not an option if Fanatikos is the agressor in a war. Once all enemy cities are razed, I will also propose a Terrain Destruction Operation to the Defense Department. This simply means I will advocate destroying all tile improvements that were in the vicinity of ruined cities. Since we can't use these tiles, there is no point to leave the improvements accessible to other civilizations.

Thank you for your time, gentlemen.

Respectfully,

Donovan Zoi
President of Fanatikos

You're welcome.

 

[Nobody]

Do agree with the taking of foreign cities in Term 3?

In the event of a war, i do.

How soon before we can even consider such a mission?

Thats up to the military and governors, once the military is in a situation to win a war, the Foreign department will begin discussion about agressive wars, although i am against them, i will post a neutral dicussion with pros and cons. and if discussion goes far enough i will poll for war.

What are your plans for war against a nation once we have taken our one pretermined city?

Military planing is up the the Military. It really depends on the reason for war. e.g. war with germany we would probably just take berlin and kill the city to our south. But if attack them with the primary goal of taking our legal city (although i am against this) we would probably want to sign peace fast afterwards.

Do we implement a scorched earth policy on their remaining cities?

When called for i have nothing against the burning down their citys, really its one of the only ways we can fight in this game.

Do we make peace once the objective city is ours?

Once again it depends on the reasons for war. but if its a simple city grab war, then yes we do.

 

[Civlord]

Vote Civlord

 

[Nobody]

you im sure that after reading the different arguments and policys of the candidates, a big VOTE CIVLORD will clutch the decision.

VOTE CIVLORD

 

[M4 Sherman]

Nobody <is a cool guy> Greekguy rules. He has a better proposal for the office: WAR!

Moderator Action: M4 Sherman: warned for flaming - Rik

 

[Civlord]

you im sure that after reading the different arguments and policys of the candidates, a big VOTE CIVLORD will clutch the decision.

VOTE CIVLORD

Yeah, vote Civlord. I am better than Nobody.

So, do you oficially support me now?

 

[TimBentley]

Nobody's better than nobody, or is nobody better than Nobody?

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Nobody's better than nobody, or is nobody better than Nobody?

That is really the question, now isn't it?

It would be unfortunate if this recent spam war between seasoned professionals caused me to pledge my vote the third candidate merely because he rose above the fray.

Let's keep it on the issues, shall we?

 

[DaveShack]

Bumper sticker posts with no other content are spam, and I don't like spammers. It's actually a little bit surprising that the posts are still there.

Now for something on topic.

The questions being asked in this thread aren't really focused on the FA position. Which city to keep is the Expatriate Governor's job, and how to attack is the Defense Minister's job. Here are some more FA-like questions.

1. How would you try to influence our opponents to ensure they remain peaceful with us until it is time to destroy them?
2. Once we do get into a war of aggression, would you drag other opponents into the conflict/
3. Should we keep our reputation intact, or use dastardly means (sneak attacks, ROP rape) to get an edge? Does this answer depend on whether we take out the whole continent before contacting other civs?
4. If we need to make peace prior to totally destroying an enemy, do you support going back to war early, or do we wait the whole 20 turns?

 

[Nobody]

1. How would you try to influence our opponents to ensure they remain peaceful with us until it is time to destroy them?

Trade is the best way to keep the AI happy, RoPs also work well but come with adtional risks. Gifts do the job, i do like gifts. A strong military can keep them polite. (it wont be bigger than theres but atleast average.

2. Once we do get into a war of aggression, would you drag other opponents into the conflict?

Depends if its a fight to wipe them out (or signicantly hurt them) then we can bring other in. If its a fast city grab then theres no point the war wont last 20 turns.

3. Should we keep our reputation intact, or use dastardly means (sneak attacks, ROP rape) to get an edge? Does this answer depend on whether we take out the whole continent before contacting other civs?

Of course we are not Barbarins, we lose our rep we lose any possiability of Foreign Affairs in the future.. And i am against island wide genocide.

4. If we need to make peace prior to totally destroying an enemy, do you support going back to war early, or do we wait the whole 20 turns?

No i don't, as i said above we need our reputation. But no option is ever off the table.